American Muslim: Islamic law prescribes death for apostates and gays, promotes pedophilia and wife beating, must be banned

Do U.S. courts justify Sharia-based Crimes?
By Dr. Tawfik Hamid

A federal appeals court has blocked an Oklahoma voter-approved measure barring state judges from considering Islamic and international law in their decisions.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

The court stated “When the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not outweigh Mr. Awad’s in having his constitutional rights protected.”

Awad argued that the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will upon his death. The appeals court pointed out that Awad made a strong depiction of how this ban would be potentially harmful.

“This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry within our society and it is pleasing that the appeals court recognized that fact,” Awad claimed. “We are also hopeful that this decision serves as a reminder to politicians wishing to score political points through fear-mongering and bigotry.”

Speaking after Judge Miles-Lagrange’s decision in 2010, Mr Awad said the ruling provided an opportunity to “demonstrate that Oklahoma’s Muslim community simply seeks to enjoy the civil and religious rights guaranteed to all Americans.”

  1. The above comments about Sharia law do not properly depict how controversial the risks to society would be if considered. Fundamental principles of Sharia law that are not only approved but also unchallenged in Islamic Jurisprudence include the killing of Muslims who convert from Islam to another faith, the stoning of adulterers, and the killing of gays[1]. Furthermore, it justifies polygamy, pedophilia and beating women to discipline them. If the judges of the Oklahoma Court knew that the basic principles of Sharia Law promote such inhumane and derogatory acts and still lifted the ban on it, it would subsequently end in catastrophe. Not only would it be a disastrous to our society but it would also show a level of ignorance within the U.S judicial system that ultimately must be treated accordingly.
  2. If one day Mr. Awad wanted to kill another Muslim because he converted to Christianity (or any other faith), would the Oklahoma court uphold his “constitutional right” to practice Sharia Law and kill that Muslim – as Sharia Law dictates – or will they uphold the “constitutional right” of the other Muslim to practice his “Freedom of Religion?” In other words, should the court of Oklahoma protect such constitutional rights that arouse criminal activity (an example being the killing of apostates) but not protect such constitutional rights that allow citizens to freely select their faith and convert out of Islam without being threatened? The court MUST explain this discrimination in respecting once “constitutional right” over another.
  3. Courts must be able to find sources for Sharia Law that illustrate how it DOES NOT promote the above mentioned criminal activities. Such sources must be cited appropriately and it must be noted whether any major Islamic institution approves it. Removing the ban on Sharia Law – without showing even one single approved Sharia text that rejects the crimes mentioned above – can be seen as a form of endorsement for legalizing such criminal acts.
  4. Some may argue that the ban on Sharia Law is discriminatory against Islam, as it did not ban other religious laws, e.g. those acts in the Old Testament that promote, what would be considered today to be, criminal activity. The answer to this point is simply that the practice of the law or the “jurisprudence” in mainstream Christianity and Judaism (for instances) clearly stands against implementing these laws in our modern day and age. Sadly, the only mainstream religious jurisprudence that still promotes and practice criminal acts – such as killing apostates – is the Islamic one (i.e. the Sharia Law). That is why we see killing apostates, stoning adulterers, and killing gays considered to be legal in Islamic countries that practice Sharia law, such as Saudi Arabia, but we do not see such practices legalized in the Vatican or in Israel.
  5. Another argument could be that even if Sharia Law promotes the previously mentioned crimes we can only punish a person if he committed these crimes. We have a precedent that challenges this concept. The American law forbids driving with a relatively high Blood Alcohol Level (BAL) as it may lead to an accident or killing of a person. In other words, the American law criminalized driving with a high BAL despite the fact that not everyone whose BAL is high causes an accident. The law did not wait for an accident or tragedy to occur to justify criminalizing driving with a high BAL. The American law simply used consequential common sense that if driving with a high BAL increases the possibility of causing an accident then it must be considered illegal. The same principle MUST be applied to Sharia law as practicing this law can threaten other people’s lives (such as the lives of apostates, adulterers, and gays) and lead to increases in the possibility of killing innocent people. In other words, as we do not wait for accidents to occur to punish drivers with a high BAL, we also cannot wait for Sharia-based crimes to occur to ban Sharia law.
  6. The US declaration of independence clearly stated that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Judges who lifted the ban on Sharia law must explain to us how allowing a law that justifies the above mentioned crimes can fit with our “unalienable Rights” of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.

Accepting Sharia Law that shamelessly allows killing apostates, adulterers & gays AND promotes beating women, pedophilia and slavery is ultimately destructive to our unalienable Rights and as the declaration of independence stated “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” The US courts simply do not have the right to deprive us from our “unalienable Rights!”

[1] Sharia Law also promotes Non-Violent teachings such as personal cleanness, however, the above mentioned violent principles represent integral component of it. Denying one of these principles – such as denying apostasy Law – is considered a form of Apostasy that deserves capital punishment (beheading) according to all 4 mainstream schools of Islamic Jurisprudence (Shafeii, Maleki, Hanbali, and Hanafi).


  1. Jefferson disagreed with miracle birth,etc
    I know this is not relevant but ina way. Thomas Jefferson chopped up parts of the bible which he did not believe in such as virgin birth, ascension and other “miracle” BS found in the new testament because these could not be explained by reason.

    So, sounds like this “republican” founding father was way more sane than the insane, bigoted, republicans of today!!!

    The “Jefferson” bible is stored in the Smithsonian.

  2. As a long time citizen of this country I think it is abominable that such inhumanity to man can exist in this century,
    in this country or anywhere in the world. If these people need to live like this they should retire to their country of origin. However the United Nations should also get in on this and thrash the law that is anti-reasoning and anti-human. Because this is a freedom loving country doesn’t mean you can come here and insult our integrity.

  3. root of the problem
    As always Acharya, or Samacharya! Very thoughtful post!
    Just couldn’t miss a chance to bash the Federal Constitution!
    Our fed constitution is ultra ambiguous and that people see what they want in it.

    There are many power conflicts in the Fed. const. but also the so called “right to revolution” is so vague that If you read it in its earlier form, as found in the D.O.I. and in several State constitutions, this right of revolution essentially says that people have ANY MEANS at their disposal to abolish govs. when they become destructive to “the peoples” peace, safety, happiness!! Several State constitutions go further, such as in the PA const which directs “the people” to physically remove the legislature! Sounds great till we remember that safety and happiness may not go together and who defines such words is even a bigger problem. And supporting that this nice piece of poetry has been ignored for over 200 years is that I doubt many judges have awarded many citizens justice because the gov was shown to have interfered with their “happiness”.

    We read that, congress cannot not pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of “religion”—honestly what the hell does that mean?

    At first it meant that congress could not pass any law prohibiting the exercise of Abrahamic religions.

    The latest attempt to ban the free exercise of religion has the so called “supreme court” arguing that religious practice can be prohibited if the practice is shown to be detrimental to public safety (same line in the Fed cosnt that Bush cited for his war powers!! To keep us safe?) .
    Of course the Fed constitution does not say that congress shall make no law prohibiting they free exercise of religion, except when such an exercise is contrary to public safety. Same with all the powers delegated in the fed con.

    We also are told that we have the right to be free from “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Great this makes me feel great, and it is the reason Bush was not sued for massive taps and data mining

    Regarding Sharia law, or any other “foreign law”, if we were to replace the word “religion” in the fed const with “freedom to exercise your conscious in a non injurious manner” or a similar sentiment. Those who belong to an organized religion would not have special protection and we may all be a little more free.

  4. Clear and present danger …
    When our constitution was written, Islam was not a clear and present danger to us, on the North American continent, except for the Barbary pirates terrorizing our shipping in that part of the world. It is now. The writers of our constitution were civilized people and they wrote a constitution which addressed civilized people. It was not written to address savages and savagery. Thus, it owes nothing to same. Tolerating, allowing, promoting, implementing, etc., sharia to any degree, ever, is destructive to our civilization and directly threatens the lives and prosperity of every American. Islam is an ideology of death and submission only. It promotes and requires blind obedience, ignorance and stupidity. It is antithetical to everything we stand for, everything we’ve striven for, everything we believe in, all progress we’ve made toward freedom and enlightenment for the past millennium. Stand resolute against it.

  5. Muslims Activist can not subvert established law
    I think Muslims are entitled to believe what they will, but as soon as their actions break established laws in the land then it doesn’t matter what they believe. I love how they think that, if their own beliefs don’t trump and stomp over the beliefs of others, they are the victims and unable to practice their beliefs and be a proper Muslim. But like I tell the Christians, this is a secular country the keep such religion OUT of governance. This activist who got his hand slapped by the established and well regarded secular laws of the land had better not assert violent protest to get his way. Other than that, I hope he and his fellow Muslims learned his lesson, but probably not.

  6. Islamic law in America
    If the muslim ragheads want Islamic law then let them return to a country that promotes this idiotic crap. Americans and christians need to start standing up against these butt heads. The only reason they came to America was to promote Islam not to become Americans. They will act cordial to your face but claiming full well they reason they are here is to kill infidels. There cannot be two laws in America period!!!

  7. Amazing the experts that come out of the woodwork with their facts, their opinions, their proof of what’s written in the Bible that took so many men so many years to put together that has been handed down through the ages, revised now and then as the truth. No wonder the religions of the world are bogus. Acharya is a gift to the world. One does not need to agree with every word she writes but common sense clears the head when the so called experts claim other wise.

  8. @ Jerry
    You seem to be defending one religious ideology over another, you’re saying that the “ragheads” need to be defeated by the Christians because of Sharia law. Yet you are blind to your own Christian law in your country, Pledge of Allegiance, Presidential Oath, & the recent of Obama’s healthcare mandate for birth control pills being rejected by Churches on religious ground, and the Churches being defended by the states. I am not defending Sharia law but saying you better take a hard look at your own country first before pointing fingers. America’s gov’t is not clean when it comes to separation of church and state.

    1. Uh, actually Jerry made no mention of defending Christianity. You’ve simply projected that into his comment. It’s easier to set up straw man fallacies that way.

      Regarding the rest of your comment, we are not blind to Christianity or our laws, the Pledge of Allegiance, Presidential Oath or separation between church and state or the GOP’s war on women:

      Separation of Religion and State ([url][/url])

      Pledge of Allegiance ([url][/url])

      GOP war on women ([url][/url])

      We are not blind to the discrimination ([url][/url]) against freethinkers, atheists and mythicists either.

      So yeah, we’re always taking a hard look at our own country. How about YOU?

Comments are closed.

© 2015 Freethought Nation, Acharya S, D.M. Murdock & Stellar House Publishing